Tulsi in Iowa, impresses many.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Tulsi Gabbard supported gay marriage before Hillary Clinton" is an inane and pointless comparison. In 2012 Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Secretaries of State by tradition do not speak on domestic or local issues, since they are irrelevant to their job, and can be seen as pushing an agenda which is not supposed to be what the office does. Hillary didn't even speak at the 2012 DNC. Neither did John Kerry in 2016, despite being a former nominee and the last Democratic nominee before the then sitting President. If Hillary had stayed in the Senate, it's a no brainer as to if she would've endorsed gay marriage in 2012, if not sooner.

It's a pointless comparison anyway, because Hillary has said she won't run in 2020. So Tulsi Gabbard, if she runs (which I doubt) should not be compared to Hillary Clinton on this, but rather the other Democrats running.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also despite the source, this is actually a really good article: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party

and I have never seen anyone refute it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Tulsi Gabbard supported gay marriage before Hillary Clinton" is an inane and pointless comparison. In 2012 Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Secretaries of State by tradition do not speak on domestic or local issues, since they are irrelevant to their job, and can be seen as pushing an agenda which is not supposed to be what the office does. Hillary didn't even speak at the 2012 DNC. Neither did John Kerry in 2016, despite being a former nominee and the last Democratic nominee before the then sitting President. If Hillary had stayed in the Senate, it's a no brainer as to if she would've endorsed gay marriage in 2012, if not sooner.

It's a pointless comparison anyway, because Hillary has said she won't run in 2020. So Tulsi Gabbard, if she runs (which I doubt) should not be compared to Hillary Clinton on this, but rather the other Democrats running.

The point is it is fairly hypocritical for Clinton supporters to blast her on this issue when they supported Clinton on this issue without questions (with her opposition to SSM till 2013 & support for the homophobic DOMA). Gabbard was 29 or 30 when she supported SSM, in 2012. She was brought up in a homophobic household, she went to the Middle East & her views changed. She has since been a part of multiple pro-gay legislation in the House. Clinton got the approval of the HRC, multiple gay organizations.

If past actions are a disqualifier then - 

Clinton should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions
Joe Biden should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions.
Tim Kaine should not be a VP Candidate because of his anti-abortion history.

This whole talk of Gabbard is a way to "punish her" for supporting Sanders. Howard Dean & Neera Tanden have talking funding a primary against Gabbard. This is not about  Gabbard being the 2020 Nominee. She is atleast 10-12 years away if ever & Sanders/Warren/Merkley will be the progressive candidate. This is about punishing people for supporting Sanders (like Perez is doing at the DNC).

If that's the reason then why is no one talking about primarying Keith Ellison or Jeff Merkeley?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why does it not throw up any red flags for people here that Bannon loves her?

...it does? Just read this very thread. Most Democrats don't like her, and most of her defenders are Republicans.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

She's 3/4 white and the 1/4 is Samoan, not a huge demographic group or voting bloc.

There's a ton of women being talked about as candidates. If she runs she probably won't be the only one, assuming that she'd get any votes based solely on bring the only woman candidate which I doubt.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I mean Syria and Libya were Obama's Iraq and we didnt see them get mad over that.

No this is not right you seriously believe this . We were in iraq for 8 years and only in libya for 7 months . far less casualties too so it isnt comparable

If Bush went to Libya for 7 months it'd be comparable.

I count well over 300 casualties in the first 7 months. No the US did not have over 300 Americans die in Libya. In the actual campaign it had...zero. The only NATO casualty at all in fact was a British pilot, and he was killed in accident in Italy, not in combat.

If you want to count the Benghazi attack despite being almost a year later that's four dead. So 4 vs. >300. No, not comparable.